From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from e8.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.138]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.69 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1MRP2V-0008SZ-Fi for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 11:22:26 +0000 Received: from d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (d01relay04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.236]) by e8.ny.us.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n6GBLxxu020692 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 07:21:59 -0400 Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (d01av03.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.217]) by d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.2) with ESMTP id n6GBM8Qx238904 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 07:22:08 -0400 Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av03.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id n6GBM7Ns022447 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 07:22:08 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/06] Fix compilation warning for fs/ubifs/commit.c From: Subrata Modak To: dedekind@infradead.org In-Reply-To: <1247742765.11353.114.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20090715021901.4112.45973.sendpatchset@subratamodak.linux.ibm.com> <1247640750.11353.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4A5E1D1A.3090705@s5r6.in-berlin.de> <1247738232.11353.90.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1247742274.5572.8.camel@subratamodak.linux.ibm.com> <1247742765.11353.114.camel@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 16:51:49 +0530 Message-Id: <1247743313.5572.10.camel@subratamodak.linux.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Sachin P Sant , LKML , David Howells , Stefan Richter , linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, Adrian Hunter , Balbir Singh Reply-To: subrata@linux.vnet.ibm.com List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, 2009-07-16 at 14:12 +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > On Thu, 2009-07-16 at 16:34 +0530, Subrata Modak wrote: > > Correct. There has been other warning fixes i have sent to LKML, where i > > have tweaked the code to fix the compilation, but, code tweaking may not > > be possible in this case. However , i would still investigate. > > I do not think that in _general_ it is a good idea to tweak code just > to have gcc pleased, granted the code is correct. In this case it is > more preferable to shut it up, e.g., using 'unitialized_var()'. Great. I would write more description in the patch then. Thanks. Regards-- Subrata >